I wrote dollars.. Polish deal is in dollars, while rafale deal is in EUR.
I already answered this to you.. So lets not go in circles..
No USA carrier can withstand nuke attack ! Just protecting some electronic components from some weaker emp waves doesn't protect AC from blast which can clear our cities and bring fucking tsunami in ocean!! But retards like you live in a fantasy world.
And again ballistic missile submarine are for deterrence. Attack submarine will need to close in on enemy ships to attack . If your keeping your attack submarine 2000km away then you are not fighting a war. They are useless that war.
But you are a moron who thinks USA will win war by keeping Carrier and submarine 2000km away from enemy .lol.
Normally I will block idiots. But you are far too entertaining.
Let's summarise your idioticy till now.
A) USA carried can stand nuke attack .lol.
B) submarine don't need protection. Lol.
C) ballistic missile submarine are used to attack .lol
D) USA can shoot down hypersonic missile. No proof but ok.lol.
E) from 2000 km away you can defeat all countries . Lol
Keep them coming . This is too good.
You know, it is actually quite hilarious how you initially try to argue with technical arguments (mostly your bad understanding of military equipment but at least it was technical) but then when all your technical arguments get debunked easily, you resort to name calling, in the hope that might be, someone will see this as you are winning the discussionget real mate. Regardless of how loud you scream or how many insults you throw out, people still see you as an idiot. Because, the key differences between us is that while I can actually back up my points with sources or calculation, you can't. All you do is scream "retard "without actually giving any support evidences to your arguments (because deep down, even you yourself know that there aren't any).It just show how desperate you are 
Look two posts above.. That link has all the details..
Oh boy still defending your lunacy.
Anyways,
A) I already give reason and calculation on why ballistic missiles which specifically designed to attack stationary target will not be effective against a carrier, which can move. The maths and physics is simple, the distance the carrier travel can be calculated, the explosion radius of a nuclear warhead can be calculated and number can't lie. It doesn't matter how much you scream, fact is fact and it won't bend to your preferences just because you don't like it. Sorry darling but fact don't care about your feeling
B) Yes they don't. There is pretty good reason why they put ballistic missiles on submarine and not anything else. It is because submarine are literally the hardest thing to find in the ocean and also the most survivable thing. The fact that you think any submarine would need carrier to move close to the shore to protect them is fucking laughable.
C) Firstly, nuclear submarine are used to attack, for example the Los Angeles class are already used to launch Tomahawk in several recent wars. What you should have said is BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE NOT USED IN CONVENTIONAL ATTACK.
Secondly, it doesn't change my argument at all. Ballistic missile are put on submarine because submarine themselves are very hard to find and track, they are among the the most survivable vehicle on the ocean, this is true for both ballistic missile submarine and attack submarine.
Now for your argument that attack submarine have to move close to attack ship otherwise they are useless in that war. That is an idiotic claim which shows that not only you know nothing about technical aspect, you are also clueless about history. During both Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, US attack submarine was used to launch Tomahawk more than a thousand kilometers from the shore to attack land target. They don't need to get close to attack ship to contribute.
D) I love how your original argument was that US can't shot down supersonic missile but after realizing how fucking retarded that argument was, you start to move the goal post hoping no one will notice
E) Strawman much ?
After a day of thinking and that the best argument you can come up with?
i truly gave you too much credit. And Military equipment are always designed/tested base on a certain standard, so by saying standard are BS and not allowed, you just showed everyone that you know nothing about military procurement and design process. Besides, you and your little friends WARENSS said there are no counter against nuclear EMP, I showed both of you that there are countermeasure and they are in place. Then your little friend have the silly idea of using a normal ICBM to destroy aircraft carrier, I showed him with simple calculation why that isn't possible. Then you said only a few aircraft are protected against nuclear EMP, I showed you that even counting Navy aircraft alone, there are more than 9 types are harden against EMP and has been tested at platform level. Then you continues saying that no aircraft carrier is protected against nuke EMP. I once against proving you wrong by showing the MIL-STD-464. Now that you run out of argument, you try to play a trick making me finding you the "Provide one document stating that a us navy carrier can with stand a full spectrum nuclear attack by enemy" otherwise you win the argument? 
Firstly, by your logic if you can't find a single documents stating ballistic missiles are immune to naked man shouting at them, that mean ballistic missiles can be stoped by many naked man?. I was actually being kind by showing you that MIL-STD-3023 is the design margin, performance metrics, and test protocols for HEMP protection of military aircraft and also showing you some Navy aircraft that get tested at platform level under that standard, I also showed you MIL-STD-464 and MIL-STD-4023 which is ship standard. Now if you want to propose that you nuclear EMP is enough to wreak all systems regardless they follow these standard or not. Then it is YOU who must supply a document which state Indian nuclear EMP can still ruined vehicle following MIL-STD-464, MIL-STD-3023 and MIL-STD-4023 standard
ALIS is a software to Spy on owners.. they are upgrading it because some customers noticed that it has been sending critical data back to us.. only Israeli one's don't have that..
It is kind of funny on the part of people making fun of few deficiencies on the most expensive and advanced jet program in history of aviation while the Indian indigenous program has more years under the belt than it has aircraft.
Nice !
and? with such a complicated and multi layerd soft, it will not be a piece of cake to fix. the bird is years late mainly because of such issues.
But tge beauty here is that since the issues are merely softwares the fixes can easily be implemented more cheaply than hardware changes or reengineering and applied to earlier batches. Also, the jet can be constantly be upgraded by softwares only.
Cannon accuracy in F-35 is also a software issue.
